Kevin Ferris's op-ed today
titled "Media's swoon over Obama" even reached the commentary pages of Japan's largest newspaper, The Daily Yomiuri, where I first read it. I wonder how many other people took it seriously.
Ferris, an editorial page editor for the Philadelphia Inquirer, uses a new documentary about campaign coverage to rehash the old argument that during the 2008 race, "the media let us down in nearly every respect."
Fine. Let's hear what you've got to say.
Pointing to a spot in the anti-Obama, anti-media documentary by John Ziegler
, Ferris rages over how it is the fault of "the media" that lots of facts about Sarah Palin
stuck with voters, while many facts about Barack Obama
did not. He notes how voters remembered Palin's expensive wardrobe, Bristol
's pregnancy and Tina Fey
's impersonation. But "what didn't sink in" about Obama was, according to Ferris/Ziegler, his "background in Chicago politics, his association with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers."
Never mind that referring to Obama's "background in Chicago politics" is too vague to mean much. Do these men really think that the American public didn't hear enough about Bill Ayers? I can still hear Palin's sound bites in my head from every stump speech she gave referring to Obama "palling around with terrorists."
The anti-media, anti-Obama crowd is apparently still seething over its claim that the mainstream media didn't cover Obama's relationship with Ayers. Is that so? What about this front-page New York Times article
titled, "Obama and '60s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths," that ran above the fold a month before the election? Don't forget the Times's story the very next day
, called, "Palin, on Offensive, Attacks Obama's Ties to '60s Radical."